Performing Complex Tasks by Users With Upper-Extremity Disabilities Using a 6-DOF Robotic Arm: A Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we report on the results of a study that was conducted to examine how users suffering from severe upper-extremity disabilities can control a 6 degrees-of-freedom (DOF) robotics arm to complete complex activities of daily living. The focus of the study is not on assessing the robot arm but on examining the human-robot interaction patterns. Three participants were recruited. Each participant was asked to perform three tasks: eating three pieces of pre-cut bread from a plate, drinking three sips of soup from a bowl, and opening a right-handed door with lever handle. Each of these tasks was repeated three times. The arm was mounted on the participant's wheelchair, and the participants were free to move the arm as they wish to complete these tasks. Each task consisted of a sequence of modes where a mode is defined as arm movement in one DOF. Results show that participants used a total of 938 mode movements with an average of 75.5 (std 10.2) modes for the eating task, 70 (std 8.8) modes for the soup task, and 18.7 (std 4.5) modes for the door opening task. Tasks were then segmented into smaller subtasks. It was found that there are patterns of usage per participant and per subtask. These patterns can potentially allow a robot to learn from user's demonstration what is the task being executed and by whom and respond accordingly to reduce user effort.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".